Sunday, March 4, 2012
On free speech, reduced violence and our new police state
Two articles were brought to my attention, purely by chance, on Facebook today. The first points to statistics showing that the world is less violent today than we were in the past: ‘The Better Angels of Our Nature’ Believe it or not — and I know that most people do not — violence has declined over long stretches of time, and today we may be living in the most peaceable era in our species’ existence. The decline, to be sure, has not been smooth; it has not brought violence down to zero; and it is not guaranteed to continue. But it is an unmistakable development, visible on scales from millennia to years, from the waging of wars to the spanking of children. (Links to aticle and book, below). But at the same time as all this less violence and improvements in societies around the world are happening, the US is choosing to more and more militarize our police--and heavily so. Check out what happened just yesterday in Virginia at a women's protest for reproductive rights.
Added to this, look at how the police were equipped to respond to these citizens of the state.
I ask you, does that not seem like a tremendous over-reach, on the part of the police and government? That's the first question. Then, secondly, whatever happened to the "people's right to protest" and the First Amendment and First Amendment Rights and First Amendment guarantee of Free Speech? Added to all this is the fact that the US House of Representatives has created HR 347 and it has passed through Congress. It states that the American people will no longer be allowed to peaceably assemble to petition the government when certain government officials are nearby, whether they know it or not. This is yet another abbreviation of our First Amendment Rights of Free Speech. Finally, there are two more bills proposed in Congress right now, HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being 'hostile' against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for 'engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.' Legally, the term 'hostilities' means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism. Since the Occupy movement began, conservatives have been trying to paint the protesters as terrorists." Has our own US government become paranoid about its citizens having and keeping our First Amendment Rights of Free Speech? It seems like Congress and this administration, too, at times, is flipping out. My only point is to ask today and hopefully make people think and demand more--restraint in this case--of our government. Links: http://www.truth-out.org/propaganda-windfall-imperial-state-steven-pinker-decline-violence/1330875517; http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/06/books/review/the-better-angels-of-our-nature.html?pagewanted=all; http://www.amazon.com/Better-Angels-Our-Nature-Violence/dp/0670022950; http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/06/new-bill-known-as-enemy-expatriation-act-would-allow-government-to-strip-citizenship-without-conviction/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
A rare post where we are in almost complete agreement.
Government over-reaches by nature, tries to accumulate power. It is the major reason I am for smaller government even in situations where I like the result.
There are some rare situations where police need heavy-duty gear--but if they have it, they want to use it. The little bits I've seen of the various SWAT TV shows bother me--I may be getting the wrong impression, but too often I see SWAT being used for minor or nonviolent crimes.
We need to pay attention to unconstitutional or barely-constitutional legislation and who votes for it--and refuse to re-elect those people, even if they are attempting to violate the constitution in our favor. We need to look at every law as if our worst enemy will decide if it applies to us.
It was bound to happen eventually, right? You and me either agreeing on something or coming close to it?
Actually, I'm for smaller, unintrusive government. I just think there needs to be at least SOME "safety net" for the least of us. Government patently can't do everything--as we know.
For instance, during Dubya's reign, I felt strongly then and still do today that the whole Homeland Security Dept. was a huge mistake. I think its existence bears that out now, too. People talk about getting rid of other departments--I'd get rid of that one post haste.
Yet another point of agreement. Even the name is awful, emphasizing its authoritarian nature--sounds like something from Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany.
But Homeland Security is a symptom, not the real problem. The federal Department of Education (which shouldn't exist in the first place) has a SWAT team with sawed off shotguns.
I want a safety net too, just not upholstered air conditioned and unlimited--and not necessarily run by the government.
Post a Comment